Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pally Ramulu And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By ... on 4 August, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993(1)ALT158
ORDER M.N. Rao, J.
1. What is essentially a private dispute between two sets of persons each claiming to be genuine members of a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, hereinafter called as "the Registration Act" is sought to be converted into question of public law for issue of a writ of mandamus. The 1st petitioner claims to be the Correspondent of Arya High School, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. The 2nd petitioner is Arya Educational Society, represented by its President one Mr. A. Govind Reddy. The 3rd petitioner is Mr. A. Govind Reddy in his personal capacity. The 2nd petitioner-Society was registered under the Registration Act in the year 1963 and it is claimed that the bye-laws of the Society were also registered with the Registrar of Societies. It is the case of the petitioners that in the general body meeting held on 4-2-1990, certain persons including petitioner No. 1 were elected as office bearers. The names of the members of the general body and the members of the executive committee elected on 4-2-1990 were communicated to the Registrar of Societies and the list has been duly recorded by that officer. As per the bye-laws, the term is for three years. It is alleged, respondents 5 to 15 who have no concern with the 2nd petitioner-society and who were never members of that Body, by forming themselves into an unlawful Society held a meeting on 2-2-1992 and passed certain resolutions, thereby the bye-laws of the Society were amended with certain far-reaching consequences; they declared themselves members of the Executive Body and proposed certain amendments to the bye-laws which virtually divested the properties of the 2nd petitioner-Society and vested the same in Arya Samaj, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. Respondents 5 to 15 it is further alleged, communicated the alleged illegal resolutions to the Registrar of Societies, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent and that authority accepted the amendments "without verifying whether the said persons are primarily the members of the said Society and whether they have concern with the said Society". They are seeking a Writ of Mandamus for a declaration that the proceedings and actions of the 2nd respondent in accepting the amendments to the bye-laws of the Society submitted by respondents 5 to 15 was illegal, unauthorised and without jurisdiction and for a further direction that he should not act upon the resolutions and amendments and a consequential direction that the 1st petitioner should be permitted to continue as Correspondent of the educational institution called Arya High School which is run by the 2nd petitioner-Society.
2. When the matter came up for admission, a learned single Judge of this Court by a speaking order dismissed the writ petition holding that under Section 9 of the Registration Act no duty is cast on the Inspector-General of Registration and stamps, the 3rd respondent, to conduct any enquiry with regard to the validity or otherwise of the resolutions received by him. The right of a person to obtain certified copies of the documents on payment of the prescribed fee incorporated in Section 15 of the Registration Act is no way supports the case of the petitioners, was the view expressed by the learned single Judge.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioners preferred Writ Appeal No. 424 of 1992 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 24-4-1992 observing that prima facie the writ petition raised arguable questions and one which consequently did not deserve to be summarily dismissed, without even counter on the record. The same deserves to be admitted with final hearing thereof being on its own merits and in accordance with law". The learned Judges also granted an ad interim order in WPMP Nos. 6285 and 6286 of 1992 "in terms thereof" as a consequence of which the amendments to the bye-laws submitted by respondents 5 to 15 to the 2nd respondent have not been recognised and respondents 5 to 15 have been restrained from interfering with the affairs of the 2nd petitioner-Society.
4. Sri K.G. Kannabiran, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under the provisions of the Registration Act, the 2nd respondent is bound to discharge certain statutory duties, viz., preliminary verification into the authenticity or otherwise of the amendments to the bye-laws of any Society submitted to his office, before issuing certified copies thereof under Section 15 of the Registration Act since the certified copies are prima facie evidence of the matters therein contained in all judicial proceedings.
5. We do not agree. The registration of the 2nd petitioner-Society was under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. The Act consists of fifteen sections. Sections 5,6,9,11 and 15 are relevant for the purpose of this case and therefore it is necessary to notice the same:
5. Annual list of members to be filled: Every year, within two weeks from the date on which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, and if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, every year in the month of Azur, a list shall be filed with the (Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh), which shall contain the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the managing committee and officers entrusted with the. management of the affairs of the society.
6. Property of society how vested: The property, movable and immovable, belonging to such registered society, if not vested in trustees, shall vest in the managing committee of the society, and in all judicial proceedings relating to such property, shall be deemed to be the property, of the managing committee.
9. Amendment, alteration etc., in the purposes of society: No alteration, amendment or extension shall be made in the purposes of the society, nor shall it be amalgamated with any other society unless, it is voted by two-thirds of the members present at a special meeting convened for this purpose in accordance with the rules of the society, and confirmed by two-thirds of the members present at a second special meeting: Provided that a notice to hold such meeting shall be delivered or sent by post to every member at least ten days in advance. (2) The alteration, amendment or extension made or amalgamation affected under Sub-section (l), shall be reported to the (Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh).
11. Dispute regarding management: In the event of any dispute arising among the Managing Committee or the members of the Society, in respect of any management or dissolution of the society, any member of the society may file an application in the District Court concerned, and the said Court shall, after necessary inquiry, pass such order as it shall deem fit. Explanation:- "District Court" shall mean, in the City of Hyderabad, First Judge of the City Civil Court.
15. Inspection of documents Their copies: Any person may inspect documents, pertaining to a society registered under this Act, filed in the office of the (Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh) on payment of a fee of one rupee or obtain certified copies thereof on payment of the fee prescribed by the said office. Such certified copy shall be prima facie evidence of the matters therein contained in all judicial proceedings.
6. Section 5 of the Registration Act obligates filing of a list with the office of the 2nd respondent and that list,shall contain the names, addresses and occupation of the members of the managing committee and officers entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society. No alteration, amendment or extension shall be made in the purposes of the society, nor shall it be amalgamated with any other society unless the proposal is accepted by two-thirds of the members present at a special meeting convened for that purpose in accordance with the rules of the society is what Section 9 of the Registration Act enjoins. Section 11 lays down that if there is any dispute among the members of the Managing Committee or the members of the society in respect of any management or dissolution of the society, any member may bring an action in the District Court concerned. Section 15 confers a right on a member of the public to inspect the documents pertaining to a society and filed in the office of the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps on payment of the prescribed fee and obtain certified copies thereof and the copies shall prima facie constitute evidence of the matters contained therein in all judicial proceedings.
7. A close reading of the above statutory provisions makes it clear that no obligation is cast upon the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps to verify the authenticity of the lists filed under Section 5 of the Registration Act nor the amendments to the bye-laws filed under Section 9. Section 15 incorporates a general right conferred on the public and it has no bearing so far as disputes between members of a society inter se or between members and the managing committee. Section 11 specifically mandates that in respect of disputes between the members of the managing committee inter se or members of the society inter se, action can be brought in the District Court concerned. The office of the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps is not intended to scrutinise the applications filed under Section 5 or the resolutions filed under Section 9. It is only obligated to receive the lists of members and office bearers and resolutions. At the time of receiving the lists or resolutions in the normal discharge of their ministerial functions if they come across any omissions they may call upon the concerned persons to supply the relevant information. One such instance has been brought to our notice by Sri K.G. Kannabiran, learned counsel for the petitioners; when a certain resolution of the 2nd petitioner-Society was communicated without the signatures of the members present the same was returned with a request to supply the resolution containing the signatures. It was only performance of a ministerial function and that was not undertaken as part of a statutory duty to enquire into the validity or otherwise of the lists of members or the resolutions passed. The only forum to resolve such disputes is the District Court as mentioned in Section 11 of the Registration Act. If one set of the people contend that the other set has not been properly elected and that they are usurpers, it is for them to bring a civil action for appropriate relief. Disputes of the present nature cannot be resolved by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Sri K.G. Kannabiran, learned counsel for the petitioners places strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Maheswari v. Union of India, 1990 Supp. SCC 440@ 481. While dealing with the powers of the Controller of Capital issues under the provisions of the Capital Issues (Control) Act, 1947, the Supreme Court held:
"That apart, whatever may have been the position at the time the Act was passed, the present duties of the CCI have to be construed in the context of the current situation in the country, particularly, when there is no clear-cut delineation of their scope in the enactment. This line of thought is also reinforced by the expanding scope of the guidelines issued under the Act from time to time and the increasing range of financial instruments that enter the market. Looking to all this, we think that the CCI has also a role to play in ensuring that public interest does not suffer as a consequence of the consent granted by him. But, as we have explained later, the responsibilities of the CCI in this direction should not be widened beyond the range of expeditious implementation of the scheme of the Act and should, at least for the present, be restricted and limited to ensuring that the issue to which he is granting consent is not, patently and to his knowledge, so manifestly impracticable or financially risky as to amount to a fraud on the public."
9. The above observations were followed in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in N. Parttosarathy v. CCI, . Under the provisions of the Capital Issues (Control) Act, 1947 the Controller has a distinct role to play. The statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act which was referred to by the Supreme Court in paragraph 63 of the Narendra Kumar Maheshwari's case (1 supra) indicate that the object of the Act was to keep in existence control over capital issues. In the context of the specific duties imposed by the Act on the Controller, the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court were made. Those observations are of no assistance to the petitioners in the present case since the Registration Act, the provisions of which, we have already considered, do not cast any obligation, either express or implied on the Inspector-General of Registration to conduct a prima facie enquiry into the validity or otherwise of either the lists of members filed under Section 5 or amendments to the resolutions filed under Section 9 of the Registration Act.
10. For the above reasons the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim orders granted earlier in WPMP Nos. 6285 and 6286 of 1992 are vacated and the same are dismissed. No costs.